Sven Wiener
HAVE just gotten a pretty terse written response with just about no explanation from Richard Connock, the Principal Officer of Ombudsman Tasmania. This follows on from my Tasmanian Times article of Monday last week: Here
and,

specifically Connock’s preceding letter.

I had thought maybe Director of Local Government’s decision not to investigate West Tamar council’s breach of the Local Government Act might cause Connock to no longer be able to argue there was any reason for the breach not to be investigated by Ombudsman Tasmania. If he investigates, he can recommend to West Tamar Council that they hold the public meeting. However he has refused to investigate in the past based on the Director of Local Government not having completed his investigation. Now Connock refuses to investigate for reasons “outlined in his preceding letter” (which boiled down to Director of Local Government not having completed his investigation – fair enough Connock would want to wait for that).


Letter 2Dec2008 From Ombudsman Tasmania To Sven Wiener:

Contact Officer Richard Connock

2 December 2008

Mr S Wiener

Dear Mr Wiener

Complaint: West Tamar Council

I refer to your emails of 20 and 23 November 2008 and advise that your file has been referred to me.

I have reconsidered your complaint, and advise that I agree with Mr McCully’s assessment of the matter as conveyed to you in his letters of 10 and 18 November 2008. The single issue raised by your complaint was whether or not Council was required to hold a public meeting after it had determined that the petition proposed by you complied with sections 57 and 59 of the Local Government Act 1993. According to the provisions of section 59(2) of the Act, Council was clearly required to hold the meeting, and Mr McCully advised you accordingly.

Your complaint and subsequent correspondence contains much argument as to why you think such a meeting should have been held, unrelated to Council’s obligations under the Act, but the issue raised which attracted the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction was whether Council had met those obligations. Whatever advice Council might have received from Mr McElwaine is not relevant to the Ombudsman’s finding that Council failed to comply with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

I appreciate that matters related to Gunns’ proposed pulp mill are of interest and importance to you, but the Ombudsman cannot compel Council to hold the further public meeting you want. I note the reference in your email of 20 November 2008 to section 28 of the Ombudsman Act 1978 and the Ombudsman’s power to make recommendations, but advise that this power can only be exercised at the conclusion of an investigation. Your complaint, however, was not the subject of investigation; as he said in his letter to you of 8 September 2008, Mr McCully was making preliminary enquiries in relation to your complaint in order to determine whether or not it should be investigated, and given the clear non-compliance of Council with its legislative obligations, determined that an investigation was not necessary.

In those circumstances, no recommendations can be made. As Mr McCully suggested, the appropriate forum for your complaint is the Local Government Office. I note your advices that the Director of Local Government is aware of the matter and has been instructed by the Minister for Local Government to investigate it. Despite your reservations, it would be appropriate to now allow that process to run its course.

In the circumstances, I agree with Mr McCully that it is not necessary to investigate your complaint and the file will remain closed.

Yours sincerely

Richard Connock

Principal Officer